MADRAS: The Tamil Nadu assembly adopted a resolution formalizing its earlier stand that the secretary of the legislature nee not appears before the Supreme Court despite summons in connection with the privilege issue being heard there.

Their solution was adopted at a emergency session, nearly a weeks after the budget session of the assembly was adjourned sine die On April 27, the Speaker had instructed the secretary to act only according to the directions of the House and not to take cognizance of any order of the Supreme Court

 “The Speakers ruling was in response to a telex message received at the secretariat from the Supreme (Court citing the secretary as a respondent in the petition filed by K-P Sunil, former correspondent of the Illustrated Weekly of India, Against whom an arrest warrant  has been issued by the Speaker. The execution of the warrant, to bring Sunil before the bar of the House for a reprimand in connection with a breach of privilege was stayed by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court summons to the secretary of the Legislature, C.S Janakiraman, to appear, was in connection with the writ petition filed by S.K. Sunther, editor of Kovai Malaimurasu, against whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by the Speaker for a breach of privilege, The court had sought Fanakiramans presence for information on whether all the 11 MLAs of the privileges committee of the assembly had been present on Feb,5, The breach of “Privilege against Sunther concerns the proceedings in the House of that day .

THE resolution was moved by the finance minister, V.R. Nedunchezhian. In his 45-minute speech, Nedunchezhian said without prejudicing the legislature’s rights, the government was always ready to provide any clarification or information sought by the court through counsel.

Giving a historical account of other privilege issues in the assembly, Nedunchezian cited the  instance of action initiated against the editor of Then nagam, K.A Krishnaswamy currently law minister) in 1972. The finance minister said Krishnaswamy had been severely reprimanded. He went on to list other instances of breach of privilege action in which editors of newspapers had come forth with an apology and the House had chosen  take a lenient view. If only these three journalists (Sunil, Sunther and Selvam of Murasoli) had said sorry there would have been no need for any action, Nedunchezian said. The chief minister, JJayalalitha, intervening in the debate, said since Independence, there had been no instance of the secretary of the legislature appearing before the court and if Janakiraman did 50, it would set precedent Jayalaltha added that it would lower the dignity and sovereignty of the House in the eyes of all other legislatures.

The four-page resolution said under Article 19 of the Constitution, the assembly had distinct responsibilities and duties including the right to safeguard its privileges and those of the members. The resolution went on to say that under the Constitution, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive were three distinct entities’ and had their own areas of Jurisdiction. The Tamil Nadu assembly had been according due respect and regard to all wings of the judiciary and would continue to do so, It added.

The resolution cited Antic 212 to say that any action taken by the assembly on matters within its Jurisdiction could not be inquired into by any court of law on the {ground that precedent’s had not been followed.

The resolution was passed with just two votes against “Thambuswamy CPM opposed the move. Some of his remarks were strongly objected to by AIADMK members and were subsequently expunged. He charged the government with anti-democratic practices. The chief minister challenged him to specify such instances. Thambuswamy staged a walkout on the issue.

Palaniswami (CPI) regretted that the House was spending so much time on privilege issues instead of discussing people’s concerns.

Article extracted from this publication >> May 15, 1992